Houston now No. 5 in population, overtakes Philadelphia

[JManc]

Originally Posted by Private Dick

You're right, and you're still technically in the Houston metro. That's the thing -- there is a rather definitive rural "end" to what is considered metro Houston (even though these far outlying areas maybe should not be considered part of a metropolitan area), with no other major population centers bordering.

You can't do that in the case of Philadelphia. Drive 60 miles and you are well into the NYC metro, Baltimore metro, etc. Philly metro is "separated" from the NYC metro, Baltimore metro and others in name only... by wholly arbitrary decisions which somehow determine lines on a map, and result in arbitrary data for us to talk about.

For instance, Galveston (with a population of around what, 50,000 or so?) is roughly 60 miles away and still within the Houston metro. Yet, the Lehigh Valley is also roughly 60 miles away from Philadelphia and yet somehow an entirely different metro -- the Allentown-Bethlehem-Easton metro, with a population of over 800,000 -- and one that is in the Philadelphia media market. And this area is certainly every bit as connected to Philadelphia (or to NYC) as Galveston is to Houston.

It's not a knock on Houston at all, so I hope that I'm not conveying it that way. Houston is undoubtedly very big, and its metro may be bigger than Philadelphia's. But how would we know? That's all I have been saying -- we can't. They're just very different situations, yet we attempt to use the same metrics to describe and rate them.

there are so few people living in these areas that i hardly consider their inclusion houston's metro enough to skew the population figures. in an area approaching 6 million, there's a few of hundred thousand at best in these outlying areas. this is how texas is in general, the state is surprising desolate once you get out of the urban areas. this isnt true with the northeast where the country side is dotted with small towns and villages.

[Bailey]

Originally Posted by Ch.G, Ch.G

I think one of the biggest hurdles for Texas cities is Texas itself. Slashing school budgets and denying healthcare to hundreds of thousands of people might provide short-term solutions to budget woes or easy wins in the culture wars, but the long-term ramifications will be severe and felt throughout the state (including the cities). It's great that Houston has an openly gay mayor, but that doesn't change the state's ass-backwards laws against homosexuality. I don't deny the cultural identity and amenities of Houston, Dallas, or Austin, but, as a gay man, I would never live in a state so openly hostile to me, regardless of how nice its cities are.

What the people in the rest of the country cointinue to overemphasize is the link between the cities of Texas and the State of Texas. It is not in as much unison as most think........ and that is by the states' design.

Texas has a pretty weak state government and a very weak governor. True, they have some state wide obligations, which mostly involver egulatory boards and deciding to accept federal funds, when they actually meet, but the majority of the day to day operations of Texans are conducted at the city levels. i.e. Austin chooses to have a strict zonuing policy, Houston chooses to have free market driven planning strategy, and why all of the other Texas cities are in control of their own destiny. The state of Texas does not meddle in citiies' affairs and the citires sure as hell don't expect to get any help from the state of Texas. It is two seperate entities.

So, this old argument about "state of Texas politics" and "I could never live in a place with Texas politics" really is an uneducated stereotype. Do yourself a favor and research the political climate of the actual city and don't base it on some puppet sitting in the Capitol building in Austin.

[novawolverine]

Originally Posted by TarHeelJ

So you don't think that this same thing happens in every other large metro? I'm using Atlanta as an example because I'm most familiar with it, but it obviously applies to many other cities as well. The suburbs didn't simply appear out of nowhere. They were towns/cities that predated the city of Atlanta by many years and they grew along with the city, eventually growing together. It doesn't matter that Boston is 400 years old and Atlanta is 200, a very similar thing happened in both places.

It doesn't happen in every other large metro. New England is rather unique when it comes to development patterns. I think you'd have to see it to understand. A lot of places have sprawled throughout the years, but having a large number of old and urban towns separated by not that much distance is not something that occurs in every large metro.

[TarHeelJ]

Originally Posted by novawolverine

It doesn't happen in every other large metro. New England is rather unique when it comes to development patterns. I think you'd have to see it to understand. A lot of places have sprawled throughout the years, but having a large number of old and urban towns separated by not that much distance is not something that occurs in every large metro.

Okay, I should have said "most" large metros. It's not like the suburban areas just pop from nothing. Most of them were already growing/expanding towns and cities that grew together with the main city, much as it happened in the Boston area.

I have seen it, not sure what makes you assume that I haven't?

[Reverberation]

Originally Posted by JManc

there are so few people living in these areas that i hardly consider their inclusion houston's metro enough to skew the population figures. in an area approaching 6 million, there's a few of hundred thousand at best in these outlying areas. this is how texas is in general, the state is surprising desolate once you get out of the urban areas. this isnt true with the northeast where the country side is dotted with small towns and villages.

Yeah, I was thinking the same thing. Once you leave Houston going west, it's about 3 hours (at 75-80mph) before you reach another city and going north it's about 4. I don't consider Hempstead or Sealy or Dayton to be big enough to really swing the numbers unfairly. Yeah the counties are big but most of the populations of Brazoria, Fort Bend, or Montgomery counties are just overflow from Harris.

[novawolverine]

Originally Posted by TarHeelJ

Okay, I should have said "most" large metros. It's not like the suburban areas just pop from nothing. Most of them were already growing/expanding towns and cities that grew together with the main city, much as it happened in the Boston area.

I have seen it, not sure what makes you assume that I haven't?

I'm not saying that you haven't seen it, but Boston is pretty unique as far as development patterns go and not typical for many other metros. You can observe some differences in its road patterns, is sort of jives with what BnaBreaker called "inefficient" before. Even if the phenomenon of towns getting enveloped into a metro area happens everywhere, the development pattern and style has a big impact on the built environment today. I guess you just have to be careful when trying to make apples to apple comparisons.

[Serenade]

Those arguments trying to defend Houston's "culture" are laughable. This is the same city that originally named its baseball team after a gun and proudly wears a jersey with a huge graphic of said gun. Stay classy, Houston.

[pm91]

http://houston.culturemap.com/newsde...e-dallas-lags/
http://houston.culturemap.com/newsde...ng-disdainful/
http://houston.culturemap.com/newsde...ouston-scores/

Houston has its hands tied when it comes to implementing "big city projects". The Texas government is completely disconnected with the states changing demographics, voter ideology, and even obvious trends (ie. the fact that people from primarily blue states and communal-society countries are moving to the Texas urban centers, and with them, their beliefs, values, and culture.) As a person who was born and raised in the Armpit of Texas and Houston suburb of Katy I have seen the changes this fantastic city has experienced in my 21 years of living here. Katy and all the suburbs around Houston are a mess. I grew up playing on all the neighborhoods being constructed, the massive expansion of I-10 (no I didnt play on it.. have some common sense), but all the while never saw any construction to meet the growth that these new neighborhoods would bring. We needed to be constructing the light rail lines back in the '90s when Houston was booming with construction in burbs. My neighborhood near Barker-Cypress and I-10 doesnt even have sidewalks leading to the high school I went to, which was only a mile away. We all know Houston lacks zoning, yet few realize just how much that has set this city up for HUGE success. We have multiple massive business centers such as the Galleria, Greenspoint, TMC, CBD, Memorial City, Westchase, Energy Corridor, and so on. These centers developed organically on their own and for the most part, their workforce lives relatively close except maybe CBD. All Houston really has to do is connect these centers together with main attractions, and you will have one hell of a city. One wouldn't have to get in a car and drive 40 miles in a day and get stuck in traffic, but rather hop on a train and go everywhere your heart desires.

This "snooty suburb-loving punk" HATES the suburbs and strives to live in inner Houston and help make Houston a better, sustainable, efficient, and connected city. Most of my friends have relocated to apartments inside the loop because we all grew up hating having to drive 20 miles to do any of the FUN things that Houston has such as The Childrens Museum, which is one of the best in the country, any of the sporting venues, Jones Theatre, Hermann and Memorial Parks, now Discovery Green, Museum District and on and on and on. Not only is the apartment boom within the loop is being driven by newcomers, but also natives that are now graduating college and deciding to STAY in Houston because of its job opportunities, wage increases, development, and excitement all of which is brewing within the city. These "yuppies" have experienced the Great Recession during their prime knowledge-attaining years and early adulthood and have become more "Green" in every sense of the word. The idea of suburbs as a sustainable way of living is now known as false, buying a house when you don't have the money may be a bad idea, living 20+ miles away from work does not even remotely sound logical unless there is mass transit. Again, Ideology is changing with my generation in large part because of the Great Recession.

Believe me when I say I know we are not a East Coast or West Coast city. Houston is the Crown Jewel of the GULF COAST. If it wasn't for air conditioning this city would not be half the size it is today. Our Urban landscape is one that formed after the invention of A/C in post WWII times and then suddenly, almost simultaneously, the onset of the Interstate system. We are a very progressive and business minded culture in Houston and hang onto our sense of community; we see ourselves as a "Really big small Town." Our Identity is, you could say, fluctuating.

Houston is the most diverse region in the country. Most of the infrastructure projects would get the green light if it was not for the opposition not realizing that the temporary inconvenience of construction will outweigh the benefits after completion of a say a light rail station nearby one's business. People are more willing and likely to go into a store if they don't have to find a place to park first.

Sorry, went off on a tangent. But, I fell most understand what I'm trying to say is that Houston knows we are not the best. We know we have a lot of to do in the sense of becoming a full-blown Global City. We also don't strive to be NY, LA, or Chicago; we strive to be HOUSTON. If it's unclear what that really means, well, Bless Your Heart you'll find out here soon enough.

[TarHeelJ]

Originally Posted by novawolverine

I'm not saying that you haven't seen it, but Boston is pretty unique as far as development patterns go and not typical for many other metros. You can observe some differences in its road patterns, is sort of jives with what BnaBreaker called "inefficient" before. Even if the phenomenon of towns getting enveloped into a metro area happens everywhere, the development pattern and style has a big impact on the built environment today. I guess you just have to be careful when trying to make apples to apple comparisons.

Okay...I actually didn't comment about development patterns and such. I was only talking about the single comment that I actually made. It often times gets blown into more on this type of site, but I didn't get into anything more than that.

[TarHeelJ]

Originally Posted by Serenade

Those arguments trying to defend Houston's "culture" are laughable. This is the same city that originally named its baseball team after a gun and proudly wears a jersey with a huge graphic of said gun. Stay classy, Houston.

Ignorant comments like this one are what sends these threads in the wrong direction.

[Private Dick]

Originally Posted by JManc

there are so few people living in these areas that i hardly consider their inclusion houston's metro enough to skew the population figures. in an area approaching 6 million, there's a few of hundred thousand at best in these outlying areas. this is how texas is in general, the state is surprising desolate once you get out of the urban areas. this isnt true with the northeast where the country side is dotted with small towns and villages.

Agreed... that's why I said that there is a rather definitive end to Houston's metro, whereas that is not in the case of Philadelphia's metro... as it just melds into NYC's, Baltimore's, and the Lehigh Valley's. Houston's can be delineated with reasonable accuracy, but Philadelphia's is a much more difficult case... and makes a valid size comparison, as to which one has more people, very difficult.

[austlar1]

Originally Posted by dave8721

Go 60 miles north from Miami and you are still in 10,000 people per square mile development and you wouldn't have even reached West Palm Beach yet...

Unless you head west, southwest, or northwest from Miami. Then you might meet up with some gators or maybe a python now that they have established themselves in your neck of the woods.

[Ch.G, Ch.G]

Originally Posted by orderlychaos

To change views, you must be visible.

Houston's mayor is a lesbian. You don't get much more visible than that.

Originally Posted by Bailey

So, this old argument about "state of Texas politics" and "I could never live in a place with Texas politics" really is an uneducated stereotype. Do yourself a favor and research the political climate of the actual city and don't base it on some puppet sitting in the Capitol building in Austin.

Huh? The state has more jurisdiction over certain issues than municipal governments. That's not an "uneducated stereotype"; it's fact. If the state rejects federal funding for healthcare, it's not like Austin can supersede that decision. If the state bans gay marriage or civil unions, Houston can't declare itself exempt.

[Serenade]

Originally Posted by TarHeelJ

Ignorant comments like this one are what sends these threads in the wrong direction.

Think about it for a second. Naming your first professional sports franchise after a gun. And commemorating it in full in 2012 with a big gun on your jersey.

[JManc]

Originally Posted by Serenade

Those arguments trying to defend Houston's "culture" are laughable. This is the same city that originally named its baseball team after a gun and proudly wears a jersey with a huge graphic of said gun. Stay classy, Houston.

the baseball team has been named the houston astros since the mid 60's so you might want to get your facts straight before you spout off more nonsense.

[Ch.G, Ch.G]

Originally Posted by Serenade

Those arguments trying to defend Houston's "culture" are laughable. This is the same city that originally named its baseball team after a gun and proudly wears a jersey with a huge graphic of said gun. Stay classy, Houston.

Maybe something like Redskins or Indians would be better?

[mhays]

The Redskins name and the Indians logo are pretty bad too.

As for Houston, it's making impressive strides. And there's plenty of work to do.

[Serenade]

Originally Posted by JManc

the baseball team has been named the houston astros since the mid 60's so you might want to get your facts straight before you spout off more nonsense.

I know. You would think wiser heads would prevail 50 years later but some things never change.

http://houston.astros.mlb.com/news/a...s_hou&c_id=hou

[Serenade]

Originally Posted by Ch.G, Ch.G

Maybe something like Redskins or Indians would be better?

Just as bad.

[kingkirbythe....]

Originally Posted by Bailey

Austin chooses to have a strict zonuing policy, Houston chooses to have free market driven planning strategy, and why all of the other Texas cities are in control of their own destiny. The state of Texas does not meddle in citiies' affairs and the citires sure as hell don't expect to get any help from the state of Texas. It is two seperate entities.

The state frequently interferes with local Austin policies and issues.